Why So Many Different Christian Views?

[Amanuensis]

Your interpretation strips apostle Peter of the Holy Spirit and mine doesn’t. Big red flag you’re under deception.

So you really think that Paul was wrong here and that Peter was innocent of these charges?
Then you can't believe anything else Paul said. This is some pretty weird stuff here you are coming out with.


11When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

 

[Runningman]

Yes, the text is very clear.

@Runningman, I am shocked. Are you really saying Paul was wrong here and that Peter was innocent of these charges? I just don't believe you really believe that. It's way too bizarre. You can't possibly believe it in your heart. You must be just saying stuff to provoke conversation. Tell me you aren't that far off the beaten path of common sense interpretation?

11When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

I'm mostly just trying to have discussion and think why two people with the Holy Spirit have different perspectives. I don't really know who I agree with. It seems like we shouldn't disagree with any of the apostles, am I right? I think Paul has valid reasons for condemning Peter, but Peter must have had good reasons too. We don't get to see what Peter's rebuttal was, but that would have been nice.

 

[2ndTimothyGroup]

If the Apostles were around today, most churches would throw them out.

Absolutely. They would have been labeled as divisive.

 

[Amanuensis]

I'm mostly just trying to have discussion and think why two people with the Holy Spirit have different perspectives. I don't really know who I agree with. It seems like we shouldn't disagree with any of the apostles, am I right? I think Paul has valid reasons for condemning Peter, but Peter must have had good reasons too. We don't get to see what Peter's rebuttal was, but that would have been nice.

I think it we can use the theological context rule of interpretation where Paul inspired by the Holy Spirit wrote so much about the equality of the Gentiles and Jews via the cross of Christ. So we conclude that he is correct in all such passages including this one.

Peter did not write anything under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to justify his actions in this incident so we can't pit a teaching of Peter about this incident against a teaching of Paul's since there is no such teaching of Peter.

That Peter filled with the Holy Spirit is still capable of making a bad decision matches our own experiences so that is not hard to understand.

If anything it shows that being filled with the Holy Spirit and being in ministry does not mean you are infallible. The scriptures are infallible, but not Peter. What Peter wrote in 1 and 2 Peter is infallible but not Peter himself.

That Peter did this thing as described by Paul does not mean we can't trust 1 and 2 Peter to be inspired it just means his actions in this incident weren't inspired.

 

[Amanuensis]

I think it we can use the theological context rule of interpretation where Paul inspired by the Holy Spirit wrote so much about the equality of the Gentiles and Jews via the cross of Christ. So we conclude that he is correct in all such passages including this one.

Peter did not write anything under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to justify his actions in this incident so we can't pit a teaching of Peter about this incident against a teaching of Paul's since there is no such teaching of Peter.

That Peter filled with the Holy Spirit is still capable of making a bad decision matches our own experiences so that is not hard to understand.

If anything it shows that being filled with the Holy Spirit and being in ministry does not mean you are infallible. The scriptures are infallible, but not Peter. What Peter wrote in 1 and 2 Peter is infallible but not Peter himself.

That Peter did this thing as described by Paul does not mean we can't trust 1 and 2 Peter to be inspired it just means his actions in this incident weren't inspired.

This was not a case where Paul and Peter had opposing views. Peter did not articulate a view, he simply drew back and separated himself, there is no mention of a view. When Paul confronted him I am sure he agreed with Paul about it and apologized for his actions and so there never was two views expressed here. Barnabas was caught up in it also. I am sure he also agreed with Paul when confronted and no one argued an opposing view.

Now Paul and Barnabas did have a disagreement about the wisdom of taking Mark with them on a second missionary trip and decided to split into two missionary trips because they both thought they were correct. This did not mean they departed fellowship or disagreed on interpretation of scriptures. This kind of thing happens today in ministry. Two pastors in the same church will split over a disagreement because they both think they are right and yet it is hard to say which one is right. Sometimes it is best for one to go do another ministry and keep the peace. But this is usually not about scripture but about the way to do ministry.

 

[Runningman]

I think it we can use the theological context rule of interpretation where Paul inspired by the Holy Spirit wrote so much about the equality of the Gentiles and Jews via the cross of Christ. So we conclude that he is correct in all such passages including this one.

Peter did not write anything under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to justify his actions in this incident so we can't pit a teaching of Peter about this incident against a teaching of Paul's since there is no such teaching of Peter.

That Peter filled with the Holy Spirit is still capable of making a bad decision matches our own experiences so that is not hard to understand.

If anything it shows that being filled with the Holy Spirit and being in ministry does not mean you are infallible. The scriptures are infallible, but not Peter. What Peter wrote in 1 and 2 Peter is infallible but not Peter himself.

That Peter did this thing as described by Paul does not mean we can't trust 1 and 2 Peter to be inspired it just means his actions in this incident weren't inspired.

"...it just means his actions in this incident weren't inspired."

And here's the slippery slope. Do you really want to be the judge and jury of what is and isn't inspired? I mean, how do you know for sure?

Consider that Peter was taking the "becoming all things to all men" approach from Paul's playbook in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23. In this way we keep Peter as still acting in accord with the Holy Spirit and this dispute can be seen a different way. Since we don't know all of the details, we really pick and chose how to interpret it.

 

[Pilgrimshope]

Failure to rightly divide the word of truth, mainly, failure to divide Israel from the body of Christ.

“Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh,… that at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

but now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

and that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: and came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.

Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;”
‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭2:11-17, 19‬ ‭

wouldn’t be a good thing to divide israel from the body of Christ they were all Israelites from Jesus to Paul John Peter ect

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”
‭‭Galatians‬ ‭3:28‬ ‭KJV‬‬

 

[Amanuensis]

"...it just means his actions in this incident weren't inspired."

And here's the slippery slope. Do you really want to be the judge and jury of what is and isn't inspired? I mean, how do you know for sure?

Consider that Peter was taking the "becoming all things to all men" approach from Paul's playbook in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23. In this way we keep Peter as still acting in accord with the Holy Spirit and this dispute can be seen a different way. Since we don't know all of the details, we really pick and chose how to interpret it.

That interpretation would BE the slippery slope.

Paul was correct. Peter did not defend his actions. There is no view from Peter to discuss. We can assume that Peter agreed with Paul when confronted.

draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, ... would mean that he was not inspired to do this thing but was being motivated by fear of the others not wanting to confront a wrong and being hypocritical.

You have no opposing view from Peter saying that he was being anything like what you are imagining. You can't present an imagined idea and put it on Peter when Peter doesn't want it or own it or say it.

Peter was operating in the fear of man and hypocrisy and there isn't an hint that he was thinking noble thoughts about trying to be all things to all people that he might win some to Jesus.

Therefore we can know that what he did was wrong and deserved rebuking. You are not being asked to accuse Peter of anything, Paul already did that. We just need to read it and understand what happened. And that is not that hard.

The hypocrisy is mentioned because Peter already had admitted that Christian Gentiles were equal with Christian Jews and just as clean spiritually, but his actions here made him appear to be not wanting to offend those that did not believe that was true.

This story gives us an example of the kind of leader we should be. We should follow Paul's example. Especially if we are in the ministry and faced with an unethical situation observed in other ministers. Stand up and rebuke them if necessary. Don't follow a group of ministers who seem to allowing something ungodly to continue uncorrected.

It also teaches us that there is rebuking and correcting fellow believers without telling them they are false prophets.

 

[Magenta]

Peter did not articulate a view, he simply drew back and separated himself, there is no mention of a view.

That seems quite an odd thing to say. People's actions do not spring out of nothing.

1 Samuel 16:7b

 

[Amanuensis]

That seems quite an odd thing to say. People's actions do not spring out of nothing.

1 Samuel 16:7b

It tells us what it sprang out of. He was afraid of those that belonged to the circumcision group. And hypocrisy. That is what Paul said was his motive. Peter did not present any other view denying what Paul said so we must assume it was true and that was his motive.

 

[Jocund]

"...it just means his actions in this incident weren't inspired."

And here's the slippery slope. Do you really want to be the judge and jury of what is and isn't inspired? I mean, how do you know for sure?

Consider that Peter was taking the "becoming all things to all men" approach from Paul's playbook in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23. In this way we keep Peter as still acting in accord with the Holy Spirit and this dispute can be seen a different way. Since we don't know all of the details, we really pick and chose how to interpret it.

Interestingly this entire Peter vs Paul dynamic is a possible origin of the idiom "rob Peter to pay Paul" or "strip Peter to clothe Paul"

Your criticism of pitting the inspired word of two people against each other appears to be reflected in that idiom. It is evidence that this debate over clashing inspired perspectives has existed in some form for hundreds or perhaps thousands of years (and that your position has historically been the supported position by many great minds that have come and gone).

I think you did a great job illustrating your point. It's always a pleasure reading the points you bring up.

 

[2ndTimothyGroup]

Okay just do what makes you feel most comfortable. I'm here if you change your mind and want to talk.

Most comfortable? I'm completely comfortable in my own skin. I have nothing left to say because I couldn't make sense of your point.

 

[2ndTimothyGroup]

I should say if one is literate and can read they are already practicing most of the rules of interpretation (which is all that hermeneutics means).

Ahhh . . . I've always thought of the term that represents the "Art and science of Biblical interpretation." I stand corrected I guess.

 

[2ndTimothyGroup]

Your interpretation strips apostle Peter of the Holy Spirit and mine doesn’t. Big red flag you’re under deception.

That's an interesting interpretation of what @SomeDisciple wrote. And what's amazing, is that this person is alive for clarification to ensure that we don't misinterpret what that person has "said." If we cannot interpret what a living person says, how much less can we interpret what was written two thousand years ago?

 

[2ndTimothyGroup]

It tells us what it sprang out of. He was afraid of those that belonged to the circumcision group. And hypocrisy. That is what Paul said was his motive. Peter did not present any other view denying what Paul said so we must assume it was true and that was his motive.

Exactly. Peter led people to turn back to the Law of Moses, and this is AFTER his vision regarding what Jews could eat . . . and the menu was wide open. But as said, Peter was afraid of the Jews . . . and likely afraid of being put to death, which ultimately happened to him and Paul regardless. Peter's fears were real and legitimate.

 

[Katia]

For several years, something hit me in the head. It felt like someone threw a brick at me! It was like someone started annoying me and won't leave me alone!

The Bible seems to be saying that we Christians, have the same "Holy Spirit" that guides us in all truth. I heard a pastor say, that unbelievers can't understand the Bible because they don't have the Holy Spirit. And yet at another Church I met a guy who claimed that even before He became a Christian He knew the Bible better than most Christians, simply because He enjoyed reading a lot. He became a Christian, therefor God did get a hold of him! But according to that one pastor, it was backwards.

When I log into Christian forums, I see an awful lot of "interesting" views. I wonder, if everyone has the same "Holy Spirit" then why does all these views exist? Some of these views set me on edge. Because of all the different Bible teachings I have ever heard, I've never come across some of these ideas. And other thing. I do the best I can. I listen to an audio Bible while I work. I've been through the entire thing from Genesis to Revelation, probably 4 or 5 times, and some of these ideas never even entered in my mind once! So when I read them, I'm like where on earth are these ideas coming from? When I look at the provided scriptures, at first glance, it looks like people are reading in between the lines, or taking things out of context to form their views. But why on earth, anyone who has the "Holy Spirit" would do such a thing? I suppose we could have some wolves in sheep clothing, but then again, we would have an awful lot of self deceived people. Which would make it really hard to determine who is and who isn't deceived. Because people who are deceived, don't know they are the deceived. That is what deception is...

So I guess, I'm curious, why do you think "Spirit Filled" people are messing up so bad?

Below are just scripture verses that I found before I started writing this post.

John 14:26
26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Romans 8:26
26 In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans.

John 16:13
13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

1 Corinthians 12
4 There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them. 5 There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. 6 There are different kinds of working, but in all of them and in everyone it is the same God at work.

According to Wiki, there are 45,000 denominations in the world. You are better off to study faithfully and make your own decision.

 

[Magenta]

According to Wiki, there are 45,000 denominations in the world. You are better off to study faithfully and make your own decision.

Repeating error in ignorance does not make it right. Even under the most liberal definition of what constitutes a denomination, there are nowhere close to 45,000 denominations. Many of these groups are merely subgroups of larger denominational groups such as Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, or Baptists.

Evangelical apologist Eric Svendsen exposes the falsehood of this fabrication. Briefly:

Svendsen shows that the source of this figure is the World Christian Encyclopedia (David A. Barrett; Oxford
University Press, 1982). Barrett cites a figure of 20,780 denominations. Still, not all of them are Protestants.
According to Barrett, Protestants account for 8,196 (and incidentally, Roman Catholics account for 223).

However, even this figure of eight thousand Protestant denominations is misleading, for Barrett defines
"distinct denominations" as any group that might have a slightly different emphasis than another group.
The distinction is made on the basis of jurisdiction, rather than differing beliefs and practices.

Barrett breaks down the Protestant bloc into twenty-one major "traditions" which are much closer to what we usually mean by the word "denominations." It is interesting that Roman Catholics are subdivided into sixteen such "traditions."

Svendsen concludes, "In short, Roman Catholic apologists have hurriedly, carelessly - and, as a result, irresponsibly - glanced at Barrett's work, found a large number (22,189), and arrived at all sorts of absurdities that Barrett never concluded." source

 

[SteveEpperson]

I don't think we're meant to be like the Borg.
All having the same experience.

Trekky alert! That's okay, I bet you are nowhere near a bigger Star trek nerd than me.
But thanks to you, now I am compelled to start Next Gen all over again.

 

[SomeDisciple]

It tells us what it sprang out of. He was afraid of those that belonged to the circumcision group. And hypocrisy. That is what Paul said was his motive. Peter did not present any other view denying what Paul said so we must assume it was true and that was his motive.

Since Peter refers to Paul's epistles as "scripture", I'd go as far as to say Peter affirmed Paul's account.

 

[Runningman]

Most comfortable? I'm completely comfortable in my own skin. I have nothing left to say because I couldn't make sense of your point.

I know it’s difficult to know who we are speaking with on the Internet, but actually I am quite friendly in reality. You are always more than welcome to just ask me to clarify something you don’t understand rather than just cleave off mid-conversation, abruptly halting all discussion.